Delhi High Court
Sh. Rajvir Rana & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 4 August, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 4th August, 2014
+ W.P.(C) No.4843/2014
SH. RAJVIR RANA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Mr. Ankit Gyan and Mr.
Ratish Kumar, Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the
communication No.F.33[28]/3/90-94/L&B/ALT/1772 dated 02.05.2014
sent by the respondent, whereby the application seeking allotment of an
alternative plot in lieu of acquired land has been rejected being time
barred.
2. Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the similar issue came before this Court in the
case of Simla Devi Vs. Secretary & Ors. 140(2007) DLT 474. Paragraph
3 incorporating the facts of the said judgment is as under:-
"3. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner
received land acquisition compensation as determined by
the land acquisition Award on 6.3.1997 and that she
applied for allotment of alternative land on 1.7.1998.
The application was rejected by the impugned order
dated 19.10.1999. The reason for rejection of the
petitioner's application is that pursuant to a public
notice stated to have been issued on 30.11.1993 in the
newspaper individuals whose lands had been acquired
after 31.12.1998 were required to apply for allotment of
an alternative plot latest by 31.1.1994 of "within one
year from completion of acquisition proceedings
whichever is later." Since in the present case the
petitioner received compensation on 6.3.1997, it is
contended that the application for alternative allotment
should have been submitted latest by 5.3.1998 whereas it
was submitted on 1.7.1998. Therefore, the only reason
for rejection of the petitioner's application for being
considered for alternate allotment was that it was "time
barred case".
4. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, this Court held as under:-
"5. This Court is of the view that the reason
adduced by the respondent for not considering
petitioner's application for allotment of an alternative
plot is not tenable. Even earlier this Court had passed
an order on 20.10.2003 directing the respondent to
consider the petitioner's application. Pursuant thereto
the respondent rejected the said representation by the
impugned order only on the ground that it was "time
barred". The so-called public notice is neither a
statutory notice nor is a gazetted noted which is
presumed to have been known by everyone. On the
contrary the notice was published, if at all, in the
newspapers only once in 1993. In the circumstances, to
contend that someone in 1997 applying for allotment of
alternative land should be presumed to know the time
limit that is stipulated in a notice printed in the
newspaper four years earlier is being unrealistic and
impractical. There is nothing so immutable about the
time limit set in the notice that the respondent should be
precluded from considering an application which is
delayed by about four month. Since this is a time limit
set by the respondents themselves, surely in deserving
cases like the present, where the applicant cannot be
presumed to know of the time limit, such a delay ought to
have been condoned. On the contrary thee refusal to
condone the delay would result in injustice."
5. In the case in hand, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide
impugned order dated 02.05.2014 while recording as under:-
"Sub. Regarding allotment of alternative plot in lieu
of acquired land.
Sir/Madam,
With reference to the above-mentioned subject, it
is to inform you that your case for allotment of
alternative plot in lieu of acquired land has been placed
before the meeting of Recommendation Committee held
on 28/03/2014 and the Committee observed that the
applicant received the compensation on 20.03.90 and
applied for allotment of alternative plot vide application
dated 14.09.1990 which is beyond the specified period of
limitation of three months. As per prevailing guidelines,
the applicant should have applied within three months of
the receipt of the compensation but he failed to apply
within the prescribed time. Hence the case is
REJECTED being time barred."
6. In view of the above noted facts, I am of the considered opinion
that the present matter is identical to the issue raised in the case of Simla
Devi (supra), therefore, keeping in view the dictum of this Court, the
instant petition is allowed and the order dated 02.05.2014 is hereby set
aside.
7. Consequently, the respondent is directed to decide the claim of the
petitioners keeping in mind the aforentoed dictum passed in the case of
Simla Devi (supra), within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy
of this order to the respondent for compliance.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 04, 2014
sb
